Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/William Henry Bury/archive1

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 27 April 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

William Henry Bury

William Henry Bury (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s):
talk) 10:41, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Bury murdered his wife and kept her body in a crate, until admitting to her death a few days later. Circumstantial evidence and superficial similarities between his wife's killing and the

talk) 10:41, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Review by Cassianto
  • "William was raised initially in Dudley by his mother's younger brother, Edward Henley." -- would that make him an uncle? Perhaps it might sound easier saying so.
  • Could we link "Factor"?
  • "...initially in the stable with the horse, but he later moved into the house." -- "later moving into the house"
  • "Ellen had been born..." -- "Ellen was born". Also, why do.
    We refer to her by Christian name on second mention?
  • "With Ellen's income from the shares, William and Ellen had a week's holiday" -- repetition of Ellen. Would it be safe to call them a couple now?
  • Check spelling of "jewelry"
  • Do we really need to
    link Australia?
  • ...again with Scotland.
  • Is there a link to "jute"?
  • "... the following morning they rented a room above a bar at 43 Union Street, Dundee." -- We have already arrived in Dundee. Do we need to be reminded of that?
  • Should there be a [sic] after the first Ripper quote pointing out the omitted "the" was intentionally left out?
  • "A more extensive search the following morning yielded blood-stained clothing, the remains of more clothing and..." -- whose is "more clothing"? Is this an add on to the aforementioned blood stained clothing (in which case its mention is redundant) or is it some other clothing belonging to someone else? Also, MoS uses square brackets for a [sic] instead of parenthesis.
  • I dont think the Met were called the "London Metropolitan Police Service" back then (the Victorians were delightfully un-PC). I would use the period title and pipe the link to the articles current name.
  • At the start of the Trial and execution section, can we have a year at the start? "On Monday 18 March..." I had to stop and go back to remind myself of the year.
  • Could the Abberline image face towards the text? IMO, it would look a lot tidier.
  • "...on the night of 4–5 February 1889" -- That reads as two nights. If it was the night of the fourth, then just 4 February 1889 will do.
  • The first para in the Ripper section needs a finishing citation.
  • Why is post-mortem in Itals?
  • OVERLINK to Bow
  • There is either a typo, or an intended mistake with no [sic] next to "What sort of work was this you Whitechapel folk have been about, letting Jack the Ripper kill so many people?"

Generally agreeable stuff, but in a need of a spot of polishing. It's certainly shaping up to be a very nice article! -- CassiantoTalk 23:18, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • As we have other characters called "Bury" and "Eliot", I think it's clearer to stick with "Ellen".
  • jute is linked at its first mention.
  • The quote "What sort of work was this you Whitechapel folk have been about, letting Jack the Ripper kill so many people?" is accurate. I'm not seeing a typo there. I appreciate that the grammar is idiomatic, but it isn't actually wrong.
  • Changes made on all other points [2], thank you.
    talk) 16:40, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]

*Comment A fascinating and wonderful read. I just have two minor comment:

  • In the lead, the first paragraph tells us about him being the probable Jack the Ripper, "Bury's previous abode near Whitechapel and certain similarities between the crimes led to suggestions that Bury was the Ripper. He denied any connection, despite confessing that he had strangled his wife.". Again in the last paragraph of the lead, "Bury's previous association with the Whitechapel district of London and similarities between the Ripper's crimes and Bury's led the media and executioner James Berry to link the two. Bury protested his innocence in the Ripper crimes, and the police discounted him as a suspect.". It seems same information is repeated here. Won't it be beneficial if that information is told only once, in the way you think is appropriate, in the lead?
  • Just a question. "On 7 April 1888, Haynes caught Bury kneeling on his bride of five days threatening to cut her throat with a knife." You mean he was kneeling for five days continuously? --Dwaipayan (talk) 13:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • To me, this reads correctly. "Bury was kneeling on his bride of five days..." As opposed to for five days. This would mean that they were only married for five days up until this point. -- CassiantoTalk 13:30, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh yes! Sorry for the mis-read. I read it "for" instead of "of"! My bad.--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:41, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No problem. Five days can seem like a long time in some relationships. ;) -- CassiantoTalk 13:45, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've re-written the lead, thanks.
    talk) 16:40, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Support An enjoyable read, concerns already addressed. Meets fa criteria.--Dwaipayan (talk) 02:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: As usual with DrKiernan, this is a high quality article. However, I have some reservations about the prose in several places. I've read to the end of the London section so far, but have found several minor issues; the overall effect of several minor issues is to make this article a little lumpy and lacking polish. There is nothing major, and nothing that can't be quickly fixed, but it may be worth having a quick sweep for similar issues. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:54, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Claims later emerged that his education was paid for by a close family friend, but these may be untrue.": I don't quite see why this was an issue, how or why it emerged, or if we need it here.
  • Cut.
  • Childhood and youth: We switch between "William" and "Bury". I have no particular problem with "William" being used in this section as I think several writers follow this practice when more than one member of the same family is mentioned in close proximity, but I think the section should be consistent.
  • Re-written.
  • Also, "William" (or "Bury") seems a little overused in this section, and one or two instances could be cut to avoid the repetition.
  • Re-written.
  • I wonder, though, if "William" is justified in later sections? I don't think there would be confusion with his wife if she is "Ellen" and he is "Bury".
  • I prefer to use William if she is Ellen.
  • "Martin is believed to have run a brothel": A little weak. He either was or he wasn't. If we don't really know, who is it who believes this?
  • Beadle, Eddleston and Macpherson all say the same thing, so, since all sources are agreed, I'm happy to retain the wording.
  • "and found work selling sawdust for James Martin. Martin is believed…" Better to avoid "Martin. Martin" if possible.
  • Re-written.
  • "initially in the stable with the horse, but later in the house": I think we can assume that the reader knows what animal lives in a stable! I don't think we need to mention the horse.
  • Cut.
  • "and was the daughter of publican George Elliot, who died in 1873": Seems a little lumpy. Do we need his occupation and date of death? Maybe just add "Ellen was a publican's daughter, born on…"
  • Re-written.
  • Do we need the address of the public house?
  • Cut.
  • Do we need the perfect tense for Ellen? It makes for harder reading, especially the "had had" which, although it is correct, I always find very cumbersome. We also have "had worked" twice in three sentences, and are getting a little into "In XXXX, she… In YYYY, she…" territory.
  • Re-written.
  • "and Ellen sold one sixth of some shares in a railway company that she had inherited from a maiden aunt, Margaret Barren, to pay William's debt to Martin": Perhaps "her shares" rather than "some shares". And do we need the name of the aunt?
  • Re-written.
  • "and in August they moved to 3 Spanby Road, which was adjacent to where William stabled his horse"
  • Cut.
  • "With Ellen's income from the shares…": Is a one-off sum of money really an income?
  • Re-written.
  • "With Ellen's income from the shares, the couple had a week's holiday in Wolverhampton with a drinking friend of William's and Ellen bought new jewellery.": The jewellery part seems irrelevant and slightly tacked on.
  • I'm trying to imply they were foolish wasters without actually saying so!
  • "William continued to assault his wife,[26] and by the first week of December, Ellen's windfall was nearly spent, and William sold his horse and cart": And…and. Also, not too sure I can see a connection between the first and second parts of the sentence (the assault and the ceasing of funds).
  • Re-written.
  • "and only did so because William told her he had obtained a position in a jute factory there.[29] However, William's claim to have been offered a job by a jute merchant was false": There seems to be some unnecessary repetition in the second sentence, and I wonder could these sentences be combined into one? Sarastro1 (talk) 19:54, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-written. Thank you for the thorough comments.
    talk) 21:07, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]

More comments: Read to the end now. Looking good. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:32, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • "They arrived at Dundee in the evening of 20 January 1889": Should this be "in" Dundee and "on" the evening? Or perhaps "they arrived at/in Dundee late on 20 January 1889".
  • Changed to "at ... on"
  • "to a squat at 113 Prince's Street": "Squat" reads like a modern word, and seems a little out of place, but not a big deal.
  • It seemed a succinct way to sum up illegal occupation. The OED has the earliest use in 1832 (as a verb; 1946 as a noun). I guess an alternative is "The Burys stayed for only eight days before they moved on 29 January to a basement flat under a shop at 113 Prince's Street. William obtained the key under false pretences by telling the letting agents that he was a viewer interested in renting the property, and then moved in without telling them."
  • "Meanwhile, Ellen had found herself a job…"
  • Done.
  • "but she quit after only a day": Do we need the judgement of "only"?
  • Cut.
  • "also wrote to Lothian asking for a reprieve.[66] The reprieve was rejected on 22 April": Could these be combined to avoid repetition?
  • Re-written.
  • "It was the last execution held in Dundee": Could some context be added here? Why was it the last? Presumably the law changed, but when (and if possible in a word or two, why)?
  • The law changed 75 years later, but Bury was long forgotten by then. As far as I'm aware, none of the sources make a direct connection between outrage at Bury's execution and it being the last execution in Dundee. Beadle, for example, describes the previous Dundee murder cases where juries had recommended mercy or the prisoner had been reprieved but doesn't seem to mention any events afterwards. Consequently, I've left the two somewhat disconnected.
  • Are there any suggestions why he brought up Jack the Ripper at all, or why someone wrote the comments in the flat? It seems odd, and I wondered if any writers offer any explanations short of the unlikely one of him being the culprit. At the moment, the only mention is that he may have imitated the killer, but could we go further? Sarastro1 (talk) 21:32, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've strengthened the sentence on suggestions that the writing was that of a child, by also mentioning that the writing was thought to have been written before Ellen's murder. But I can't find anything deeper in the sources on why Bury brought it up.
    talk) 18:41, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Support: All the changes look good, and I'm happy with the reasons for not making changes for the other comments. Great work, as usual. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:39, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's a nice article. I would query "Others contend..." (last para) which looks a little vague. Also, do we need the days of the week? ("Monday 4 February" might be just as good as "4 February".) MOSNUM is silent on the subject but I suspect that unless the day of the week was very significant to the subject it could safely be elided. --John (talk) 08:56, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, Beadle does not say who the others are: he just says "doubters". I've cut one of the days but kept Monday 4 February as that is the date of the murder. However, if someone else chose to remove it, it certainly isn't something I would put back in.
talk) 18:41, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Sources are fine, spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:06, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/William_Henry_Bury/archive1&oldid=1079644183"